I grabbed the following as a brief description of animal use of deception from an Discover article by MARC HAUSER:
"All of us (humans) understand what it is like to distort the truth. We have the mental tools not only to think about our own beliefs but also to recognize what others are likely to believe, and maneuver in such a way that we can, if we are devious enough, alter the beliefs of our friends and enemies. This capacity derives from our social brain and its exquisite mental circuitry. When that circuitry is damaged, the effects can be devastating psychological problems. Patients with autism, for example, often experience a form of "mindblindness," an inability to read from behavior what others feel, want, and believe".
"Are normal human adults unique in their capacity to read others' minds? Are we the only animals that can lie? To be honest, we don't yet know--but given the battle to survive and reproduce, we should not be surprised to discover that through natural selection other animals have evolved strategies to dupe opponents and reap the rewards of competitive struggle. [emphasis mine] The challenge faced by researchers interested in the question of non-human deception is to distinguish between the con artists and the true masters, between those who look as if they are aware of how the process works and those who really do know."
"...Nature leaves us with a wonderful puzzle. Animals of all kinds deceive. Predatory fireflies lure prey by mimicking their mating signals; molting (and thus defenseless) mantis shrimp bluff intruders with aggressive displays; female plovers feign injury to draw predators away from their young. But during the course of evolution, some organisms acquired an understanding that they are deceiving. This event represented a renaissance in thinking, an awakening of mind. It allowed not only for true Machiavellian deception but also for self-reflection, an understanding of mortality, and an appreciation for how and why belief systems diverge and converge. We humans are unquestionably part of this renaissance. But we have yet to determine when or how it started--or why" (Hauser 2000)."
I'm probably sounding like a skipping CD at this point, but we certainly don't think that animals, who at least act as if they have a desire to live, are morally responsible for deceiving and killing one another. The article describes the understanding and manipulation of deception, not as dysfuntion, but as a "renaissance in thinking", an "awakening of the mind" that occured through natural selection as animals evolved strategies to dupe opponents and reap the rewards of competitive struggle. What rationale can be given as to why should we not also regard Eichmann's cunning use of deception as also just a product of that evolutionary struggle? (What else could Eichmann be, other than a product of the evolutionary struggle?) In other words, I don't see how, even given a preference for life as compelling, which even animals seem to possess, an evolutionary base principle leads to the conclusion that Eichmann's use of deception is dysfunctional and 'wrong' by definition, a definition I happen to agree with, btw.
Cordially,
The question almost answers itself, really. Look back at that passage - in all those examples, who is being deceived? Are those examples of intra-species deception, or inter-species deception?
They're all examples of inter-species deception, of course. The firefly doesn't seek to deceive his own, but others, from outside the community. When faced with the "other" from outside the community, and survival is at stake, then deception is very much an appropriate and adaptive strategy. But when directed against one's own, and the members of one's own community or species, then it is dysfunctional if widely practiced.
Who you are deceiving, and why, does make some difference, I think you must agree. After all, you said almost as much, by noting that these were deceptions of "opponents" ;)